[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers

Wed Oct 21 03:54:32 CDT 2009

All,

This thread unfortunately (or fortunately depending how you look at it)
dropped off the list after this point and continued through the night while
I was (thankfully) fast asleep. Today's a new day and rather than risk
wasting another I don't plan to spend more time on it at this point as I am,
like Adrian <http://twitter.com/jclouds/status/5037108001>, fast approaching
the end of my tether.

FWIW people who should know <http://mike.mykanjo.co.uk/> do agree with this
approach <http://twitter.com/jclouds/status/5030884020> and the general
feedback we have been receiving off-list has been overwhelmingly positive -
some examples:

"from your presentation I think OCCI is great stuff!  I'm interested to see
what OCCI looks like, as it seems high debate may change it"

"I'm absolutely amazed at the progress you've made if this is how OCCI
forums run.  It's a pretty cool API."

"I just read through the spec.  It's actually surprisingly simple, which is
good.  I really like the clean RESTful interface."

"I think you guys have done a great job -- the spec is extremely
straightforward and intuitive for anyone familiar with the usual HTTP
verbs."

I could go on but you get the point - despite the unfortunate tone of this
thread things are looking good for us, provided we avoid being derailed by
what are relatively trivial issues (relative to, say, actually delivering a
complete spec in a timely fashion that people believe in sufficiently as to
implement it).

Sam

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Andre,
>
> I read Adrian's email in regards to the a tested history of stuffing
> attributes into http headers. I'm not debating that issue. It does work,
> or else http wouldn't.
>
> What is not proven and my issue is this is an unproven technology for
> management applications. We have 2 new items here, a new and unproven
> management protocol and now a new and unproven networking protocol.
> Selling one is hard enough when questions like is it proven in a 5-9s
> environment on a global scale. Adopting both is far too risky for
> serious enterprise adoption. Believing it can happen, is just
> unfamiliarity with the market.
>
> My issues are not driven by technology for technologies sake. And there
> are places for that, like apache incubators. My concerns are derived
> from practical business issues including technology risk management.
>
> Honestly, I'm have run out of road on this issue, and have more pressing
> commitments to spend my time on.
>
> Andre, I think many in this group has lost perspective and is caught up
> in rhetoric.  Its up to the proposer's to justify and provide evidence
> that this is a viable technology that can be deployed. Not the other way
> around. Proposer should  noted whether the target environment and
> application is it intended for a web browser technology, as life
> critical application technology; is it indented to support reliably as
> "best of breed" in the global enterprise.
>
> -gary
>
>
>
> Andre Merzky wrote:
> > Quoting [Gary Mazz] (Oct 20 2009):
> >
> >> Adrian,
> >>
> >> These issues are business issues and not appropriate discussion for this
> >> group. The issues about this technology have been brought up by myself
> >> and others. I'm done discussing this issue. If you trust S3, go for
> it.:-)
> >>
> >
> > Uhm, I think Adrian is trying to make a technical point, i.e. is
> > citing prior art.  If you consider the S3 prior art invalid, ok, I
> > am sure he'll listen to your arguments, and he and Sam will try to
> > find another example...
> >
> > Andre.
> >
> > PS.: You know, it is great to see a group with strong individuals -
> > but I would not like to chair it... ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >> -gary
> >>
> >> Adrian Cole wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Gary.
> >>>
> >>> I attended the AWS enterprise meetup in LA last week.    The number of
> >>> objects they mentioned that are stored in S3 is currently 70 billion
> >>> and the service has been running for over 3.5 years.   Granted that
> >>> their "global story" is shorter, but they do 2 years presence in the
> >>> EU.   All 70 billion objects use headers for metadata.
> >>>
> >>> What metadata system is more proven then this?  What are the technical
> >>> risks of using headers?   Are there clients or systems that are unable
> >>> to pass http headers, but are able to pass entities?
> >>>
> >>> None of this matters, if the concern is the code impact to your
> >>> application.  However, I'd like to know the details of the broader
> >>> concern you may be implying.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> -Adrian
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Look Sam,
> >>>>
> >>>> If you feel that this is the best way for move occi forward, go for
> it.
> >>>> I'm iust trying to preserve the integrity of the work and support it
> >>>> properly in this group. I will be rolling out an occi interface or
> occi
> >>>> like interface publicly by Q1'10. I will not be deploying this
> proposed
> >>>> protocol until it is proven to work in a global environment. If that
> >>>> means abandoning occi, well, I'll abandon occi.
> >>>>
> >>>> I personally, feel I cannot and will not risk a customer's business or
> >>>> the livelihood of partners and their families on a single opinion and
> >>>> unproven technology. When you get real numbers from a global time
> study,
> >>>> I'll be glad to review them and support your efforts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Enjoy your night off.
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers
> >>>> gary
> >>>>
> >>>> Sam Johnston wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Gary,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And here I was thinking I was getting the night off...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     I am advocating this is not the only interface.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not the only interface - there's currently this one for machines
> >>>>> and XHTML5 for users (and masochistic machines who like to parse
> XML).
> >>>>> However it is the only interface users would have to implement
> (rather
> >>>>> than having to code XML, JSON *and* text, which was the case before).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway I see Adrian has kindly stepped up to discuss the details with
> >>>>> you so I can get back to writing PyUnit unit tests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sam
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> occi-wg mailing list
> >>>> occi-wg at ogf.org
> >>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> occi-wg mailing list
> >> occi-wg at ogf.org
> >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20091021/291014a2/attachment.html 